Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CT and MRI of ovarian cancer

  • Review
  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Among the gynecologic malignancies, ovarian cancer is second most common in incidence. However, unlike the other gynecologic cancers, its mortality has decreased only minimally during the last two decades [1]. Only recently, preliminary studies suggest promising results for ovarian cancer screening using transvaginal ultrasound in combination with serum Ca 125 levels [22, 23]. Exploratory laparotomy has been the mainstay in the management of ovarian cancer, as it offers histopathological evaluation as well as cytoreduction. However, it is limited by its inaccuracy with understaging in 30–40% at initial presentation. Cross-sectional imaging contributes valuable information toward preoperative surgical and management planning. The proper surgical approach can be selected, the need for preoperative chemotherapeutic debulking can be assessed, and the surgeon will be forewarned of the need for assistance from a gynecologic oncologic surgeon or gastrointestinal oncologic surgeon if a complicated surgical procedure or bowel resection is indicated. CT is established as the primary imaging modality for characterization of ovarian tumors and ovarian cancer staging, while MR is emerging as a problem-solving modality. MR seems to be superior to CT in lesion characterization, in evaluation of local extent of tumor, and in tumor implants involving the hemidiaphragm and liver surface. The role of spiral CT has yet to be explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boring CC, Squires TS, Tong T, Montgomery S. Cancer statistics, 1994. CA 1994;44:7–26

    Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson RJ. Review radiology in the management of ovarian cancer. Clin Radiol 1993;48:75–82

    Google Scholar 

  3. Walsh JW. Computed tomography of gynecologic neoplasms. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:817–830

    Google Scholar 

  4. Young RC, Fuks Z, Hoskins W. Cancer of the ovary. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: principles and practice of oncology, vol I. Philadelphia: Lippincrott, 1989:1162–1191

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amman AM, Walsh JW. Normal anatomy and techniques of examination. In: Walsh JW, ed. Computed tomography of the pelvis. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1985:1

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carrington BM. The adnexae. In: Hricak H, Carrington BM, eds. MRI of the pelvis: a text atlas. London: Martin Dunitz, 1991:185

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kormano M, Groenroos M. Computer-tomographic evaluation of gynecologic tumors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1984;63:509–516

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mamtora H, Isherwood I. Computed tomography in ovarian carcinoma: patterns of disease and limitations. Radiology 1982;33:165–171

    Google Scholar 

  9. Buy JN, Moss AA, Ghossain MA, et al. Peritoneal implants from ovarian tumors: CT findings. Radiology 1988;169:691

    Google Scholar 

  10. Halvorsen RA, Panushka C, Oakley G, et al. Intraperitoneal contrast material improves the CT detection of peritoneal metastases. AJR 1991;157:37

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heiken JP, Brink JC, Vannier MW. Spiral (helical) CT. Radiology 1993;189:647–656

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hricak H. Current trends in MR imaging of the female pelvis. Radiographics 1993;13:913–919

    Google Scholar 

  13. Smith RC, Reinhold C, Lange RC, et al. Fast spin echo MR imaging of the female pelvis. Part I. Use of a whole-volume coil. Radiology 1992;184:665

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nghiem HV, Herfkens RJ, Francis IR, et al. The pelvis: T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR imaging. Radiology 1992;185:213

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sica GT, Stevens SK, Hricak H, et al. Comparison of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced MR images in the evaluation of ovarian lesions (presented at the 78th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America), 1992

  16. Stevens SK, Hricak H, Stern JL. Ovarian lesions: detection and characterization with gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 1991;181:481

    Google Scholar 

  17. Smith RC, Reinhold C, McCauley TR, et al. Multicoil high-resolution fast spin-echo MR imaging of the female pelvis. Radiology 1992;184:671

    Google Scholar 

  18. Scully RE. General aspects of ovarian tumors. In: Tumors of the ovary and maldeveloped gonads: atlas of tumor pathology, 2nd series, fascicle 16. Washington, D.C.: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 1979:30

    Google Scholar 

  19. Scully RE. Teratomas. In: Tumors of the ovary and maldeveloped gonads: atlas of tumor pathology, 2nd series, fascicle 16. Washington, D.C.: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 1979:246

    Google Scholar 

  20. Morrow CP, Townsend DE, eds. Tumors of the ovary: neoplasms derived from coelomic epithelium. In: Synopsis of gynecologic oncology, 3rd ed, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1987:257

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gershenson DM, Silva EG. Serous ovarian tumors of low malignant potential with peritoneal implants. Cancer 1990;65:578–585

    Google Scholar 

  22. Van Nagell Jr, DePriest PD, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ. Ovarian cancer screening. Cancer 1993;71:1523–1528

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, et al. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:70–76

    Google Scholar 

  24. Scoutt LM, McCarthy SM, Moss A. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis. In: Moss AA, Gamsu G, Genant HK, eds. Computed tomography of the body with magnetic resonance imaging, vol. III, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1983:1215

    Google Scholar 

  25. Buy JL, Ghossain MA, Sciot C, et al. Epithelial tumors of the ovary: CT findings and correlation with US. Radiology 1991;178:811

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kier R, Smith RC, McCarthy SM. Value of lipid and watersuppression MR Images in distinguishing between blood and lipid within ovarian masses. AJR 1992;158:321–325

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stevens SK, Hricak H, Campos Z. Teratoma versus cystic hemorrhagic adnexal lesions: differentiation with proton-selective fatsaturation MRI. Radiology 1993;186:481–488

    Google Scholar 

  28. Togashi K, Kazumasa N, Kimura I, et al. Endometrial cysts: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 1991;180:73

    Google Scholar 

  29. Forstner R, Hricak H, Occhipinti K, White S, Stern J. Value of CT and MRI in the staging of ovarian cancer. Accepted for presentation at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Society of Magnetic Resonance.

  30. Weinreb JC, Brown CE, Lowe TW, et al. Pelvic masses in pregnant patients MR and US imaging. Radiology 1986;159:717

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kier R, McCarthy SM, Scoutt LM, Viscarello RR, et al. Pelvic masses in pregnancy: MR Imaging. Radiology 1990;176:709–713

    Google Scholar 

  32. Semelka RC, Lawrence PH, Shoenut JP, Heywood BScM, et al. Primary ovarian cancer; prospective comparison of contrast-enhanced CT and pre- and postcontrast, fat suppressed MRI, with histologic correlation. JMRI 1993;3:99–106

    Google Scholar 

  33. Turnher SA. MRI of pelvic masses in women: contrast enhanced vs unenhanced images. AJR 1992;159:1243–1250

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mitchell DG, Mintz MC, Spritzer CE, et al. Adnexal masses: MR imaging observations at 1.5 T, with US and CT correlation. Radiology 1987;162:319

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ghossain MA, Buy JN, Ligneres C, et al. Epithelial tumors of the ovary: comparison of MR and CT findings. Radiology 1991;181:863

    Google Scholar 

  36. Amendola MA. The role of CT in the evaluation of ovarian malignancy. Crit Rev Diag Imag 1985;24:329–368

    Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson RJ, Blackledge G, Eddlestone B, et al. Abdomino-pelvic computed tomography in the management of ovarian carcinoma. Radiology 1983;146:447–452

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jaquet P, Jelinek JS, Steves MA, Sugarbaker PH. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer 1993;72:1631–1636

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dooms GC, Hricak H, Crooks LE, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lymphnodes: comparison with CT. Radiology 1984;153:719

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. R. Forstner

    Present address: Zentralröntgeninstitut, LKA, Salzburg, Austria

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, 94143-0628, San Francisco, CA, USA

    R. Forstner, H. Hricak & S. White

Authors
  1. R. Forstner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Hricak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Forstner, R., Hricak, H. & White, S. CT and MRI of ovarian cancer. Abdom Imaging 20, 2–8 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00199633

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00199633

Keywords

Search

Navigation